Why wouldnt A be considered an attack on the premise that says that land becomes too poor to support agriculture?

Should we identify the answer before looking at the answer choices?

Are there jy video explanations for prep tests A-C? Thanks

You've probably seen his explanations and commentary throughout the curriculum, and now is your chance to ask him anything. So come with specific LSAT questions, come with strategy questions, come with all things LSAT, and leave with answers from a true LSAT pro.

Office Hours with David Accounts Playable

Tuesday, July 25, 7:30 pm EDT

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/181002101

You can also dial in using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 181-002-101

Joining from a video-conferencing room or system?

Dial: 67.217.95.2##181002101

Cisco devices: 181002101@67.217.95.2

First GoToMeeting? Try a test session: https://care.citrixonline.com/g2m/getready

see question above

Redacted

Hey all,

I'm trying to figure out how to study better. On my latest practice test, my actual score was 164 and blind review was 178. The problem is that I'm very inconsistent with my performance in each of the sections.

RC usually is the best for me, I miss 2-3...but on this practice test I missed 6. The subject matter in the last two passages were really boring so I was struggling to get through them.

LG - I've been drilling games crazy for the past two weeks but one of the games in this practice test really threw me off and messed up my pace in the entire section. In blind review, I was able to get all the questions right.

LR -In one section, I got -2 and in another section I got -6. I'm not missing a particular question type. It's more that I'm not reading the stimulus carefully and missing out on key inferences.

This week, I'm going to keep drilling LR and LG sections. I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly I need to work on. Should I try a consultation with one of the 7sage tutors? If so, which one would you recommend?

Hey everyone,

I have a question about what you recommend I do next in my study schedule.

As some background, I completed the CC about 2 months ago and have just finished fool proofing 1-35 using the @Pacifico method. Throughout the process, I have been drilling LR sections from old PT's every few days or so. I also took the time to do a cursory read through the LSAT Trainer. I didn't do all of the exercises in the book by any means but I found it helpful in solidifying some concepts and with RC reasoning structure.

I seem to have improved in my LG abilities (I missed 9 LG questions on my diagnostic and seem to be right around -1/-2 now). As for LR, I seem to be missing about 4 questions per section with the greater majority of them being RRE and NA questions. My specific question is, should I move on to PT'ing at this point or should I spend some time drilling LR some more before that?

Thank you!

Hi 7sage!

After spending the last 3 months or so focusing intensely on LR and RC and making great improvements... I feel like I lost some of the momentum I had going with the logic games. Between January and April I fool-proofed PTs 1-25 and now am having similar difficulties as to when I started doing timed logic games (i.e. misreading rules, making careless errors, being generally slow in identifying inferences)... I am going back to basics and redoing the entire LG portion of the CC and am going back to foolproofing and will tackle games that gave me difficulty from 1-25 and will foolproof 25-35 in the coming weeks. Any other recommendations? I'm feeling nervous that maybe I wasn't progressing as quickly as I thought I was with the foolproof method and maybe I was just redoing games that I was already familiar with and that was where my success came from... Any advice would be much appreciated. Love this forum, love the LSAT!

Just wondering how other people go about drilling specific question types.

I have narrowed down my problem question types and now wondering what the best way to drill those weaknesses .

Should i time them in groups? Or individually?

Just trying to set out a feeler for what worked for other people.

P.S. of course, no matter, what there will be an intensive BR and Review of every question

For anyone using Powerscore with 7sage:

In 7sage LR language, how would you classify/approach the LR Question type: "Justify the Conclusion" (this is Powerscore language). I am using both resources together.

Thanks!

What is the difference between making the premises less supportive of the conclusion and attacking the premises? Wouldn’t attacking the premises reduce the support that the conclusion receives?

Hello,

This is an NA question that I have been trying to grasp. It's REALLY hard.

I will explain how I can justify the to myself and I would be so grateful if anyone wants to chime in and add any additional analysis.

The stimulus -

CTX: There is frozen nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide on the surface of Pluto, which vaporize to make Pluto's atmosphere.

P: The proportion of each gas in Pluto's atmosphere results how readily the gas vaporizes.

C: Pluto's atmosphere is made of nitrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gas, listed from greatest to lowest proportion.

The correct answer states that there is no frozen substance (let's call it X) on Pluto that vaporizes more readily than methane but less readily than carbon monoxide. In other words there is no gas X in the atmosphere of which there is more than methane and less than carbon monoxide. The negation would read like this: C > X > M , there is a fourth gas in the atmosphere and there is more carbon monoxide than methane (if I understand correctly).

I think my issue at first was that I did not read the conclusion to say there were only three gases in the atmosphere and no others; I suppose stating "the components are..." does imply that. So, if there was a fourth gas in the atmosphere, there are not three, as the conclusions claim. Moreover, with the CA negated, there would be more carbon monoxide than methane, which wrecks the argument. This seems to be an example of a really bare minimum NA, that makes you go "doi."

I chose (D), which states that nitrogen is only found in the atmosphere if it is also found as ice on the planet's surface. It's useless to the argument. Natm --> Nps ; /Nps --> /Natm. Neither of these statements reveal anything new or relevant about the situation.

Thanks in advance for any input!

We'll be starting with RC on Sunday and then continue LR on Tuesday.

Here's to hoping that with more practice we'll look at the test more like how Tormund looks at Brienne (rather than the other way around).

PT 67 w/experimental RC fr PT40 Sunday, July 23rd 12PM ET

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/992713853

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.

United States: +1 (571) 317-3122

Access Code: 992-713-853

If the link doesn't work, google Go To Meeting and enter the meeting access code

Requirements:

The That's So Ravenclaw study group is for 12 people who are committed to studying and improving their test performance for the September 2017 LSAT. Workshops and intensives to eliminate weaknesses will also be made available to the study group. Tuesday at 7pm is our additional study time to meet to go over other questions we didn't get to on Sunday. Comment below if you would like me to tag you for our meetings. This group will be going private in 3 weeks.

Tentative Schedule: https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=00ppvvc0gp9hdvin7b0p3igdhg%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York

In the Fool Proof Method for LG in the CC, step 6 tells us to write down all inferences from memory. What exactly does this mean in practice? For every game I'm not perfect at -- I take another clean copy, and go through the game and simply write down what I remember? Am I not reading the questions; just jotting down what I recall?

I just finished my first LG lesson with 7Sage and WOW. I've tried learning Logic Games under other programs and they were AWFUL. Then comes JY and his mastery for all things logic and it just clicks. I've become more confident in LG in the last hour than I have in the 2 months I spent studying other lessons. So now I'm just curious -how/when did JY start tutoring? Did he just realize he had a knack for teaching and the rest was history? He truly has a gift and I'm just thankful I'm learning the LSAT in the age of 7Sage.

One of the biggest issues I have is not reading the sentences in the stimuli carefully...

Do you have any suggestions to prevent such mistakes besides underlining?

Also, I found paraphrasing/re-wording what I just read in my own words before moving on to the next sentence is incredibly helpful to comprehend the RC passages. For those who have mastered LR, how do you read the stimuli? do you think paraphrasing would be helpful in LR as well or do you think such step is unnecessary in LR?

Thanks everyone! :)

I had to take a week off of the LSAT because of a work conference that kept me extremely busy.

I tried to return to it today with a PT.

The issue; I was incapable of doing it. LG that normally took me 5min took me 15. I would read easy LR stimulus and have to repeat it over and over and over, because I could not retain an ounce of information. I felt 0 confidence in any of my answer.

I normally score in the 167 range - if I had kept going I would have been lucky to break the 160's.

What's going on? It's kinda bothering me...

Apparently, LSAC has included chronographs as one of the other devices that are banned in the testing center. Does this mean that LSAT specific watches that indicate the time from 0 to 35 minutes are banned as well?

Thread title edited for clarity by admin

Hi,

I graduated from the UK with an upper-second class honours. I looked online and I think it translates to 3.4 / 4.00. My question is do law schools look at the converted GPA the same way they look at US graduates' GPAs? My dream school is Northwestern. with an LSAT score of 162-166 do I have a good chance of being admitted? all other things equal.

Thanks,

Math and I have never been close. Now with Lsat, I often come across questions that J.Y. marks as "high-school algebra" or "mathematical question in disguise" and almost always, I get them wrong.

It seems that I have to overcome my life-long battle with math. But, I think repetitively practicing these math questions aren't going to cut it. So, I want to ask those who has struggled and defeated these type of questions, what was your approach/strategy? Also, do you know any books/outside material that could supplement and improve my lack of mathematical reasoning skills?

Any advice will be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance :)

Heres the problem so Im getting all of the easy questions correct and some of the hard ones too but I really want to drill the really difficult questions so I know that I am actually improving, do you guys know where to find the harder LR questions to drill? Thank you so much!!!!!!!!

ok so i live in Yonkers, and im looking for people around the area to study with, keep eachother motivated and kill the test together, I mean i have my motivator @tringo335 that keeps me in check but im down for expanding my inner circle of lsatness.

@theLSATdreamer said:

Fordham NY Public Library: 310 Kingsbridge Road Saturday August 5, 2017 9:30 a.m. try doing PT 62 before then.

Hey everyone,

So i've decided I do not want to wait anymore, and attend law school starting 2018.

How will admissions look at an applicant who has taken the LSAT 3 times? Does that put one at a disadvantage?

Any response is much appreciated!

Hey All-

I'm looking for a good warmup to start using before PTs that can hopefully serve as a warmup through test day. Does anyone out there have a pretest warmup exercise that they're happy with? I was thinking about doing a logic game and maybe one of J.Y.'s LR problem sets, but I'd love to hear what works for everyone else.

Thanks!